Mots-clés
academic presentations
EFL fluency
Comment citer
Résumé
Viewed from the perspective of a monologue, silence may be interpreted as a means of organizing speech for the purpose of leading the listeners and attracting their attention or, alternatively, as a sign of dysfluency and consequently, an obstacle to easy comprehension. The effect depends on the placement of silent pauses and their function, a criterion that becomes particularly relevant in the case of non-native speech. This paper explores the development in the use of silent pauses by EFL students enrolled in a coursein academic presentation. The three participants selected for the study represent different general EFL proficiency levels. They participated in an academic presentation course during which their presentations at the beginning of the course (an impromptu speech) and after four weeks of specific language-focus training (a prepared short presentation) were recorded. The analysis of the silent intervals in the collected samples reveals differences in the use of silent pauses as an element of dysfluency vs. increased fluency in presenting. The results are discussed from the perspective of fluency measures on the one hand, and successful presentation skills on the other.
Références
Boersma P., Weenink D. (2012), PRAAT [computer software], available at https://www.phon.hum.uva.nl/praat [accessed: April 2014].
Bygate M. (1996), Effects of Task Repetition: Appraising the Developing Language of Learners, (in:) Willis D., Willis J. (eds.), Challenges and Change in Language Teaching. Heinemann, London, UK, pp. 136–146.
Bygate M. (2001): Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Language, (in:) Bygate M., Skehan P., Swain M. (eds.), Task-based Learning: Language Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Longman, London, UK, pp. 23–48.
Chang H., Windeatt S. (2024): Fluency Issues in L2 Academic Presentations: Linguistic, Cognitive and Psychological Influences on Pausing Behavior. „Language Teaching Research”, 54, pp. 113–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241233718
Cruttenden A. (1986), Intonation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
De Jong N.H. (2016), Predicting Pauses in L1 and L2 Speech: The Effects of Utterance Boundaries and Word Frequency. „International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching”, 54, pp. 113–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9993
De Jong N.H., Bosker H.R. (2013), Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, Stockholm, Sweden.
De Jong N.H., Perfetti C.A. (2011), Fluency Training in the ESL Classroom: An Experimental Study of Fluency Development and Proceduralization. „Language Learning”, 61, pp. 533–568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x
Ferreira F. (2007), Prosody and Performance in Language Production. „Language and Cognitive Processes”, 22, pp. 1151–1177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701461293
Ferguson K. (2002): Silence: A Politics, „Contemporary Political Theory”, 1: 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300054
Fillmore C.J. (1979), On Fluency, (in:) Fillmore C.J., Kempler D., Wang W.S.Y. (eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp. 85–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50012-3
Halbert D., Whitaker H. (2016), Advocacy and Public Speaking. University of Chester Press.
Horn D. (2024), Principles of Public Speaking. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003414926
Iwashita N., Brown A., McNamara T., O’Hagan S. (2008), Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct? „Applied Linguistics”, 29, pp. 24–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm017
Kahng J. (2014), Exploring Utterance and Cognitive Fluency of L1 and L2 English Speakers: Temporal Measures and Stimulated Recall. „Language Learning”, 64, pp. 809–854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12084
Kahng J. (2018), The Effect of Pause Location on Perceived Fluency. „Applied Psycholinguistics”, 39, pp. 569–591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000534
Klimczak-Pawlak A., Waniek-Klimczak E. (2023), Exploring Pitch Accent as an Element of Fluency in L2 Academic Presentations – A Proficiency-Based Sampling Report. „Research in Language”, 21(1), pp. 61–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.21.1.04
Nation I.S.P. (1989), Improving Speaking Fluency, „System”, 17, pp. 377–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90010-9
Lynch T., Maclean J. (2000), Exploring the Benefits of Task Repetition and Recycling for Classroom Language Learning. „Language Teaching Research”, 4, pp. 221–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400303
Powell M. (2002), Presenting in English. Language Teaching Publications.
Riazantseva A. (2001), Second Language Proficiency and Pausing: A Study of Russian Speakers of English. „Studies in Second Language Acquisition”, 23(4), pp. 497–526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310100403X
Saito K., Ikan M., Magne V., Tran M., Suzuki S. (2018), Acoustic Characteristics and Learner Profiles of Low, Mid and High-Level Second Language Fluency. „Applied Psycholinguistics”, 39, pp. 593–617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000571
Segalowitz N. (2010), Cognitive Bases of Second Language Cognitive Fluency. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203851357
Tavakoli P. (2011), Pausing Patterns: Differences between L2 Learners and Native Speakers. „ELT Journal”, 65, pp. 71–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq020
Tavakoli P., Skehan P. (2005), Strategic Planning, Task Structure and Performance Testing, (in:) ELLIS R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 239–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
Tavakoli P., Wright C. (2020), Second Language Speech Fluency: From Research to Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589109
Tavakoli P., Campbell C., McCormack J. (2016), Development of Speech Fluency Over a Short Period of Time: Effect of Pedagogic Intervention. „TESOL Quarterly”, 50(2), pp. 447–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.244
Thai C., Boers F. (2016), Repeating a Monologue Under Increasing Time Pressure: Effects on Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy. „TESOL Quarterly”, 50(2), pp. 369–393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.232
Licence
© Agata Klimczak-Pawlak 2024
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
Auteurs :
Les auteurs de textes acceptés pour publication dans la revue Neofilolog sont tenus de remplir, signer et renvoyer à l'adresse de la rédaction, un accord sur l'octroi d'une licence gratuite pour les œuvres, avec obligation d'accorder une sous-licence CC.
En vertu de cet accord, les auteurs des textes publiés dans la revue Neofilolog accordent à l'Université Adam Mickiewicz de Poznań une licence non exclusive et gratuite et permettent l'utilisation de la sous-licence Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Les auteurs se réservent le droit de disposer librement de l'œuvre.
Utilisateurs :
Les utilisateurs d'Internet intéressés ont le droit d'utiliser les œuvres publiées à partir de l'année 2017 sous réserve des conditions suivantes :
- reconnaissance de la qualité d'auteur - l'obligation de fournir des informations sur la qualité d'auteur, le titre, la source (liens vers l'œuvre originale, DOI) et la licence, ainsi que l'œuvre distribuée ;
- sans créer d'œuvres dérivées - l'œuvre doit être conservée dans sa forme originale, p. ex. les traductions ou les interprétations ne peuvent être distribuées sans le consentement de l'auteur.
Tous les textes publiés sont soumis au droit d'auteur.
Autres :
L'Université Adam Mickiewicz de Poznań se réserve le droit à la revue dans son ensemble (mise en page, forme graphique, titre, conception de la couverture, logo, etc.).
.